HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Tom Harkin: Filibuster Re...

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:41 PM

Tom Harkin: Filibuster Reform Failure Hamstrings Obama Agenda

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) warned President Barack Obama that he "might as well take a four-year vacation" if the Senate fails to pass real filibuster reform -- and the plan being unveiled Thursday by Senate leaders doesn't qualify, the veteran lawmaker said.

"It's a baby step. Really, it's a baby baby step," Harkin told reporters Thursday before heading into a caucus meeting on the filibuster plan.

The Senate filibuster -- in which a single lawmaker can hold up a bill unless 60 senators vote to end debate on the matter -- has become the favored tactic for stalling Senate action over the last three sessions, with nearly 400 instances.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had threatened action to change the rules, but the deal coming out Thursday only modestly limits filibusters at the start of debates and not on the bills themselves or other steps along the way.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/tom-harkin-filibuster-reform_n_2544153.html



Yep. The President is now a lame duck with a veto.

86 replies, 7310 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply Tom Harkin: Filibuster Reform Failure Hamstrings Obama Agenda (Original post)
onehandle Jan 2013 OP
Little Star Jan 2013 #1
NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #27
xxqqqzme Jan 2013 #77
NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #78
xxqqqzme Jan 2013 #84
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #2
rurallib Jan 2013 #3
russspeakeasy Jan 2013 #4
earthside Jan 2013 #5
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #6
Purveyor Jan 2013 #9
fasttense Jan 2013 #7
duffyduff Jan 2013 #40
Journeyman Jan 2013 #8
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #10
woo me with science Jan 2013 #13
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #18
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #24
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #29
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #42
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #44
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #45
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #47
jeff47 Jan 2013 #51
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #61
jeff47 Jan 2013 #65
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #71
treestar Jan 2013 #68
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #73
treestar Jan 2013 #76
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #81
treestar Jan 2013 #67
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #72
treestar Jan 2013 #75
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #80
treestar Jan 2013 #66
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #70
treestar Jan 2013 #74
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #79
24601 Jan 2013 #69
on point Jan 2013 #11
Fuddnik Jan 2013 #39
Dragonfli Jan 2013 #12
woo me with science Jan 2013 #15
smokey nj Jan 2013 #19
NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #32
RickFromMN Jan 2013 #14
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #17
drm604 Jan 2013 #55
The Wizard Jan 2013 #16
red dog 1 Jan 2013 #20
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #21
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #23
Smilo Jan 2013 #22
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #25
Smilo Jan 2013 #26
high density Jan 2013 #34
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #28
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #30
Gregorian Jan 2013 #37
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #38
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #43
jeff47 Jan 2013 #52
Plucketeer Jan 2013 #31
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #33
Pauldg47 Jan 2013 #35
rjlobo422 Jan 2013 #36
onenote Jan 2013 #48
jeff47 Jan 2013 #53
onenote Jan 2013 #56
jeff47 Jan 2013 #57
mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #41
jeff47 Jan 2013 #54
mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #59
jeff47 Jan 2013 #60
mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #62
jeff47 Jan 2013 #64
mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #82
jeff47 Jan 2013 #83
ReRe Jan 2013 #46
blkmusclmachine Jan 2013 #49
4dsc Jan 2013 #50
madrchsod Jan 2013 #58
Dragonfli Jan 2013 #63
47of74 Jan 2013 #85
woo me with science Jan 2013 #86

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:44 PM

1. This is a "no shit Sherlock" moment. Someone explain it to Harry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Little Star (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:46 PM

27. Not just to Harry, but also

Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, Joe Manchin, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer. They are why Reid could not get the 51 votes he needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:19 PM

77. Don't you just

love Feinstein's 'I'm ready for my close up Mr CSPAN' announcing her assault weapons ban bill? Then makes certain it will never see the light of day by pulling this crap?

She had NO business running again. Her husband made their millions off the Iraq war. She can retire and suck up even more taxpayer funded retirement and healthcare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxqqqzme (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:28 PM

78. So many of them

disgust me now, that it's hard to even give a damn anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #78)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:11 PM

84. I can certainly relate to those feelings.

Why did I work to get Obama re-elected if spineless Democrats are going to flush it all away?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:47 PM

2. Just when I was starting to believe Reid was not so bad after all.

Now this.

Come On Harry!!! Please lead or get out of the fucking way.

Do the Nuke Thang

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:47 PM

3. thank you Senator Harkin for fighting for this change for years

so sorry there was little change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:48 PM

4. but old harry was working hard wasn't he ?

What an incompetent, weak man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:48 PM

5. HARRY REID SAVES THE FILIBUSTER!

That's the way this revoltin' development is being headlined on Drudge.

What a legacy Sen. Reid ... and those weak few Democratic Senators who apparently side with Mitch McConnell in doing what they can to stifle the Obama agenda.

The significance of this failure is going to be mightily profound, there is just no way to sure-coat this triumph for the obstructionists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:51 PM

6. He wont get a chance to use his veto. Kiss further appointments goodbye. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:54 PM

9. First 'Hold" in line with be the Hagel nomination that many here will applaud while embarrassing

the President.

I am beyond disgusted by this 'cave'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:53 PM

7. So how often is Harry going to run on reelection saying he

will change the filibuster rules?

Obama is never going to get anything passed through congress now. No need for the RepubliCONS to gerrymander the Senate cause they have the filibuster to abuse democracy with.

Thanks Harry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:55 PM

40. He isn't going to run for re-election. He's old as the hills. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:54 PM

8. What did they expect, with Senator Lawnchair as point man? . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:59 PM

10. Bookmarking because I know that DU will eventually blame Obama and forget about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:08 PM

13. ROFL! That's quite an attempted vaccination

for something that was predictable as sunrise based on *years* now of watching both Obama *and* our loyal corporate Democrats.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

So now we are mysteriously falling short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

Yeah, I am sure Obama is crying in his tea over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:21 PM

18. Obvious response coming from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:32 PM

24. Sad but true, I suppose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:58 PM

29. A president who cannot

control his own party is a president who chooses not to control his own party. Good lord, even George Bush Jr. could do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:06 PM

42. A president does not control the Senate. Send Biden and learn basic civics while you're at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:24 PM

44. It's his job

to try. Every American president who ever progressed American civilization has controlled the Senate. Learn something about the lessons of history before trying to school me in civics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:28 PM

45. No it is NOT!! Learn about civics! That is NOT how the U.S. Constitution works, dear!

Welcome to IGNORE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:16 PM

47. The Constitution

creates three legally equal branches of government and the possibility of a balance of powers. It prescribes three branches of government. It does not require a balance of power. That should be obvious. Is IGNORE some kind of acronym for close minded?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:38 PM

51. Actually, it doesn't create a balance of power.

Congress has WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more power than the other branches.

The President can't do jack shit about the vast majority of the problems we face. All he can do is say "Hey Congress! You should do something about this!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:13 AM

61. I said the Constitution

creates the possibility of a balance of power and that in fact their is always an imbalance. As for the President being unable to do jack about our problems, I'd refer you to Lincoln, FDR and even LBJ. They ruled majorities in the Senate with iron fists. When a weak president leaves the exercise of power to the dildos in Congress, governance becomes a joke and a threat at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #61)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:51 PM

65. No, it doesn't.

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress much, much, much more power than the other two branches. That's not a balance of power.

I'd refer you to Lincoln, FDR and even LBJ. They ruled majorities in the Senate with iron fists.

No, they had mostly compliant Senators, and senators from the opposing party that didn't filibuster everything. There is no magic power a president has to make Congress do his bidding. Congress has to want to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:11 PM

71. Congress has to be afraid

not to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:18 AM

68. Wow you are really into the cult of personality

Who do you admire most? Those who can persuade others or those who can threaten others? If only Obama would get some dirt on someone and blackmail them with it? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:29 PM

73. I really don't care.

Because I don't care, your "cult of personality" comment is strange. I am no respecter of politicians and there is not one of them I even admire. As far as I'm concerned their business is to get the things done they campaigned to get done. If that requires playing hardball with members of congress, so be it. What's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:21 PM

76. You're overly cynical IMO

If you respect none of them, even when they are freely elected, you may as well say you don't respect the voters, don't care who they chose to represent them and we may as well have an inherited monarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:00 PM

81. What you said

pretty much describes me up to the part about the monarchy rackets. I find the idea of "noble" people as offensive as I do chosen ones. H.L Mencken once said that: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." I tend to agree with that sentiment. I'm also of the same opinion as Mark Twain. He once said that, "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except congress." I hold that position also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:17 AM

67. WTF?

That balance of power protects us from tyranny!

Why don't you as well say the President should control the Judiciary?

Sounds like you'd prefer a dictator. They can get things done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:23 PM

72. The balance of power

would protect us from tyranny if it worked. The Judiciary is the gate keeper of the status quo. The President doesn't need to control it. We already have a plutocracy to which all three branches of government are beholden. They get things done, but not for most of us. I am unwilling to make any kind of excuse for President Obama because of a recreant congress. No one drafted him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:19 PM

75. Very unfair to the judiciary

Which branch decided Roe v. Wade? Applied to commerce clause so as to let the civil rights laws stand? Decided the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment without extraordinary circumstances?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:51 PM

80. Correct me if I'm wrong,

but wasn't each of these decisions rendered prior to 1974, the last time there was a moderate majority on the Court? That was a longtime ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:16 AM

66. You actually would want that?

A President who controls the Senate? That is not how it is supposed to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:08 PM

70. You're right.

That's not how it is supposed to be, and I would not wish it. That's just the way it is. Given the choice between a strong executive in control of a corrupt congress and a corrupt congress in control of the country, I'll go with the strong executive every time, unless it's a Republican of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:18 PM

74. What's a "corrupt Congress?"

60 corrupt members? 51 corrupt members? Better to work at state level and get good Senators.

I'm a fan of realism but not at this cynical level, we need to at least try. Corruption somewhere is inevitable but we don't want to give into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:38 PM

79. So long as politics

is a pay to play game, so long as politicians are permitted to gerrymander their districts, so long as millions of voters are disenfranchised, and politics is more profitable than working for a living, congress at every level will remain thoroughly corrupt. Fix these things. Forget about working to get good senators under such a system. Good representatives will remain as rare as zinc pennies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:24 AM

69. I wouldn't blame President Obama unless he had tried to filabuster when he was a US

Senator.

If so, he was part of the problem, not the solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:01 PM

11. Time to replace Reid as majority leader in new Senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:51 PM

39. Time to just get rid of the Senate completely.

Completely dysfunctional.

Face it. Democrazy is dead in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:06 PM

12. Defeatism and Doomsaying!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022253002


Do not listen to defeatists and doomsayers. Some of them are not even on your side, despite their use of the word lefty or left in their screen names. Some do not wish for Obama to succeed.

Harry is doing a heck of a job we, should support him in this!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022253002#post16
unfortunately, only the Democratic leadership, and far too few of the Democratic electorate, realize this.


You know, in the real world,
realists know Harry had no choice or something
fixing the filibuster was always unattainable, I am sure he got a handshake promise.
They could have demanded a 67 vote cloture, Harry saved us, it could have been worse if not for this deal.

This is really a win!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:13 PM

15. Woo hoo!

Yeah! Or something!






Welcome to corporate term #2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:23 PM

19. I hope the people singing Harry Reid's praises realize that they can never complain about Republican

obstruction ever again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smokey nj (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:05 PM

32. As ConservaDems, those folks are far more likely to cheer

preserving Republican obstructionism, than they are to give credence to the Liberal/Progressive Democrats who fought to restore filibuster rules. Blame not just Harry Reid, but also Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, Joe Manchin, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:08 PM

14. Four years? I thought a new Congress would start two years from now. Reform in two years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:19 PM

17. Yep, in two more years we will get another chance to kick the football. Lucy promised. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:59 PM

55. And the Republican controlled states are doing everything they can to frustrate that hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:13 PM

16. They just flushed

the 2014 midterms down the crapper. They gave themselves a convenient excuse for not getting anything done. The Republicans still control both houses despite the majority voting for Democrats. The minority now controls the House, Senate and Supreme Court. Say goodbye to any remnant of democracy. It's all over but the shouting.
Reid is an epic failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:24 PM

20. Too bad Tom Harkin isn't Senate Majority Leader

From the article (OP)

"A group of lawmakers led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) had hoped to re-institute the talking filibuster, in which a lawmaker who wanted to obstruct something would have to take the floor to sustain an objection instead of literally phoning it in."

I'm no fan of Harry Reid; but I don't think he deserves all the blame here.

If President Obama really wanted a return to the "talking filibuster", he could have instructed Reid to push for it, instead of (again) caving to the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:29 PM

21. There is nothing new in the OP other than Harkin's OPINION. No breaking news there.


The clue that the article is NOT LBN is that the word 'IF' is in the first sentence.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:30 PM

23. Good point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:26 PM

22. So Harry did you get

a quickie from McTurtle? You must have gotten something you liked, because you just sold out the country again.

I can't find it - does anyone know if Senators are still allowed to make anonymous objections and stop Bills dead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:36 PM

25. Article below



-snip-

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:44 PM

26. Well that's something - thank you Tx4obama.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:09 PM

34. The 41 idea was much better

Let's have 41 Republicans putting their names on a filibuster. It sounds like we still have a system where one crazy person can hold up the entire process of the body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:53 PM

28. Let's get a couple of undeniable truths out there

1) This has absolutely nothing to do with keeping rules in place for the day when Dems do not have a majority in the Senate. The GOP will make up their own rules and they won't ask the Dems' opinion. We know that because they did exactly the same thing the last time they had a majority. When the Dems used the filibuster a little too much for the GOP's liking, they threatened to end the filibuster rule altogether, and in the end the Dems had no choice but to accept a grossly curtailed filibuster practice. Why does nobody even mention this now? Why has Reid not held McConnell to that same rule that the GOP imposed on the Dems?

2) It is inconceivable that a newly reelected President could not prevail on his Majority leader to make this chance if the President wanted that. This is not Reid being a wuss. He is doing what Obama wants.

So it is beyond any debate that BOTH Reid and Obama are perfectly happy with the status quo where the GOP locks up the Senate with filibusters on every major bill, and refuses to move on dozens of key appointments.

There can be an interesting debate as to WHY Obama and Reid refer this, but there can be no doubt that this is what they want.

My opinion on the latter point is that Obama figures he can't get anything meaningful past the House, so he might as well give the Senate GOP an opportunity to continue to make asses of themselves, at least leaving an opportunity to run against th4e "do nothing Congress" in 2014 and 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:02 PM

30. The change in the Senate rules are a big change in my opinion.

Two of the things that Reid has been fighting will be eliminated by the new rules.

I think even though these are modest changes they are going to be a big improvement
I've been following the judicial nominations for several years and the new change is going to be a HUGE help in getting them confirmed faster.

"... post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2 ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280012



Also there will be NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections


-snip-

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:30 PM

37. Thanks, both you and Bluestreak. I really appreciate your thoughts.

I've been fuming about this. So much so that I actually felt a great deal of apathy rising. It helps to know a little bit about things before giving up. And for that, I thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:33 PM

38. We shall see

I don't deny that Reid may have negotiated some incremental improvements, and that perhaps they might make some slight difference. But I don't think anybody could argue that this agreement will slow down the GOP abuse of the filibuster in any significant way. We will still see hundreds of filibusters each session compared to a small handful, which was the practice before the modern GOP began this pattern of abuse.

And in particular, they will still be able to block all of Obama's initiatives, except ones that might somehow slip through under reconciliation rules. And without forcing a talking filibuster, the GOP pays no price at all for obstruction.

What is sad is that the talking filibuster was both good democracy and good politics. We will get neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:07 PM

43. Thank you. People are trying to find ANY excuse to blame Obama. ODSers scare me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)


Response to onehandle (Original post)


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:06 PM

33. The Democratic Party

is no longer an instrument for reform and hasn't been for a long time. It has, however, mastered the the best play in its political campaign playbook, which is "Fake left. Go Right." Liberals fall for it every election cycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:15 PM

35. Don't give up boys.....

...divide and conquer....an election is coming up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:17 PM

36. A Huge Mistake

Harry Reid made a huge mistake with this agreement.

First off, I thought a majority means a majority. We should be able to move our agenda with 51 votes when we control the Senate, and live with it when the Repubs are in charge. The use of fear to justify this piece of crap by saying that we wouldn't have Roe Vrs. Wade if we had 51 votes is nonsense. Yes, in a perfect world, we would have lots of gentleman"s agreements and understanding that one side wouldn't screw the other, but let's get real here. This ain't your father's Senate, and it is the crazy ass Republicans we are talking with here. Making a gentleman's agreement with Mitch McConnell is like a gazelle with a newborn calf making an agreement to pass safely through the territory of the local lion pride.

We should have jumped on this one with both feet. We had the momentum of Obama's reelection, a working majority in the Senate, and the approval of the American public at our backs. Now I am afraid that the next four years will be very close to the last, with Republicans blocking far more of the President's agenda than they should be able to do. I'm afraid we can say goodbye to things like meaningful gun control.

I want to congratulate Sen. Harkin, Sen. Merkley, and others in the Progressive Caucus who had the balls to stand up for meaningful change. I'm getting real fucking tired of hearing lectures on the sasuage making process from moderate Democrats who are just too scared of their shadow to make a move. If not now, when?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rjlobo422 (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:31 PM

48. Can someone explain how we move our agenda with the House controlled by repubs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:48 PM

53. By passing laws in the Senate

That applies much more pressure on the house. With things like universal background checks running at 96% approval, it becomes quite hard for members of the House to get re-elected while blocking that.

With such things not even passing the Senate, the pressure is greatly reduced. Each house of congress can point at the other as the source of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:34 PM

56. There simply is no evidence that is the case

I wish it was, but as someone who spends a lot of my time up on the Hill working on legislative matters, I can tell you its not. If a bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, maybe it gives some of the House repubs cover to jump ship. But you've got to get 17 repubs and hold onto all of the Democrats, which is a high hurdle these days. And if the bill passes the Senate without bipartisan support, the repubs, have more to fear from a primary than from Democrats due to gerrymandering, will feel little pressure to jump ship and go with the Democrats.

Its just wishful thinking to think that, until we recapture the House (or narrow the margin to just a couple of votes), that getting a bill through the Senate with fewer than five republicans would put any significant pressure on House repubs to compromise.

There is a saying up on the Hill these days: McConnell has to herd cats. But Boehner has to herd feral cats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:39 PM

57. Go read what I wrote again.

You don't get these laws passed in this Congress.

You use the fact that the House failed to pass these popular laws as a cudgel in 2014.

Yes, gerrymandering helps the Republicans hold the House, but that's why we needed additional pressure to help overcome that bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:52 PM

41. Proceed with caution

Every one of these potential changes should be viewed with this in mind...how comfortable will you be with these new rules in place if/when the republicans are in control of the senate again. Each of these baby steps take away tools that the democrats would have available to try to stop a future republican agenda. Are you good with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:49 PM

54. Why do you think Republicans would keep these rules in place?

The filibuster will be gone as soon as a Republican majority takes over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:45 AM

59. Because as far as I can tell, that's what they've done when they've been in power.

I've been doing some searching to see if I could find stories of either Dole or Frist pushing for filibusterer reform and so far am coming up blank. Cloture didn't exist until 1917, and at that time it was pushed for by Woodrow Wilson and required 67 votes. In 1974 it was Democrats in the majority that pushed to get it down to a 60 vote requirement for cloture.

I think the biggest reason to suspect that if the republicans control the senate again they might try to make changes that weaken the hand of the minority, is that the Democrats are the ones currently trying to open Pandora's box. Once it is open, who knows what other rules changes we'd see. The senate is a body that is supposed to be more deliberative, where it is supposed to be much harder to pass a bill without a lot of serious compromise from both parties. That is by design, and is a design that has served us well for a couple of hundred years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:53 AM

60. You're looking too far back

Since the Republicans were threatening to get rid of it during W's administration. The only reason they didn't is Democrats promised not to use it.

I think the biggest reason to suspect that if the republicans control the senate again they might try to make changes that weaken the hand of the minority, is that the Democrats are the ones currently trying to open Pandora's box.

The Republicans are the one who started the "let's get rid of the filibuster" plan. And now that Republicans have normalized massive abuse of the filibuster, they're well aware of what Democrats could do to them.

It's gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:22 AM

62. I'm not clear that it is ok by either side

If you have some links referring to the repubs trying to get rid of it under W, I'd happily read them. I seem to vaguely remember some of that talk, but haven't found the articles yet.

It needs to not be gone. The rights of the minority need to be preserved, because one day the Democrats will be in the minority again.

A lot of the outrage over repub filibusters is being created by Reids actions. More than any majority leader he has filed for cloture on the same day bills are introduced and then blocked amendments offered by the other side. If/when a repub majority leader does that in the future in order to prevent Democrats from having any say in a bill, or having the ability to debate it, or the ability to offer amendments...damn straight I'd expect the Democrat minority at that time to filibuster and fight at every turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:45 PM

64. Can't find links?

Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Bush_appointments:_2001.E2.80.932006

It needs to not be gone. The rights of the minority need to be preserved, because one day the Democrats will be in the minority again.

I'm not arguing for it to go away. I'm arguing that it should be harder to do. Because after these milquetoast reforms, the Republicans will simply get rid of the filibuster the next time they have a majority.

More than any majority leader he has filed for cloture on the same day bills are introduced and then blocked amendments offered by the other side.

....So you've spent exactly 0 minutes actually researching Senate history then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:56 PM

82. So what we're saying is that it was bad then, but it is good now

Frist was abusing his power and looking to use the extreme nuclear option to brush aside the minority party, which was clearly upsetting. In the case of judicial nominees it would have allowed the repubs to push through any nominee, no matter how extreme, and remove any ability for the Democrats to stop them. This was a bad thing.

Now Reid wants to pretty much do the same thing so the obstructionist minority party cannot stop the progress of legislation or nominees which it deems to be extreme, and what we have here on DU are people upset that he's not going far enough.

My view is more that if a majority leader abuses his/her power in an attempt to eliminate the voice of the minority, that's a bad thing regardless of whether there is a D or an R next to his/her name.

Regarding my point about the number of cloture votes, it is quite easy to verify that there have been more of them under Reid than under every former Senate majority leader.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:33 PM

83. Yay! You actually bothered doing some research!

So what we're saying is that it was bad then, but it is good now

No. Not even close.

The filibuster is a tool to use in extreme circumstances. That used to be enforced by tradition, but the Republicans have abandoned tradition. So the rules need to be written so that it takes a lot of effort. That way it will only be used in extreme circumstances.

Reid's changes don't do that. The filibuster continues to be trivial to use. Today's Republicans will not allow the Democrats a trivial-to-use veto over their agenda.

We're talking about people proudly proclaiming their gerrymandering success and their plans to cheat in the electoral college. They are not yesterday's Republican party.

Now Reid wants to pretty much do the same thing so the obstructionist minority party cannot stop the progress of legislation or nominees which it deems to be extreme, and what we have here on DU are people upset that he's not going far enough.

Utterly false. Even Udall/Markley would still let the minority filibuster. The changes would require the minority to actually put forth effort to do so.

Under Reid's compromise, it's actually harder for the minority to vote on a bill than filibuster a bill - only one of them has to show up for the filibuster.

Regarding my point about the number of cloture votes, it is quite easy to verify that there have been more of them under Reid than under every former Senate majority leader.

And once you begin to understand how the Senate works, you might start figuring out how those votes aren't Reid's fault. See, the way the Senate used to work, the minority would just let bills come up for a vote via unanimous consent. So they didn't have to do cloture votes. McConnell and company refuse to give unanimous consent, so the next step in the normal way of doing things is a cloture vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:46 PM

46. I knew something was up on....

...Inauguration Day. I thought Harry Reid was not going to make it to the balcony. Did anyone else notice? It was like he could hardly make it. I thought he was going to collapse, out of breath. Then at the luncheon after the Inauguration, he made a toast for the President and didn't even finish with a click of his wine glass.... He sat his wine glass down at the first of his toast and then walked off and left it. Not a smile. Nothing.

And now, we learn that he has caved on the filibuster. Fuck Harry. And all who went down the way with him. Fuck them all. Good will and good faith out of Mitch McConnell?????????? what a wimp Harry Reid is. Wimp, Wimp, Wimp! I'm so mad I can't see right now... Damn!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:44 PM

49. 4 More Years Of The Last 4 Years.

It's what the DC "Democrats" wanted, apparently. How bad are they wanting to lose in 2014/16 ??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:27 PM

50. I fucking told you Reid supporter

No fucking BACKBONE!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:01 AM

58. the worse majority leader of either party in the history of the senate

obama won with a clear mandate of the american people. his final term means he does`t have to kiss any republican`s ass to get what he wants. harry the wimp kisses at least the next two years good bye.



we`ll have to work our asses off to make sure we keep the senate in the next election cycle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:14 AM

63. A boxer that takes a dive is a bum, he needs to loose his belt

He throws the fight for the other side's promoter each and every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:34 PM

85. I'm wondering if this is why Harkin decided to retire...

...seeing the rather spineless Senate Democratic leadership in action again probably made him figure it's better to enjoy his golden years than pissing them all away since Reid isn't doing anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:11 PM

86. I think it's pretty clear that this move

will help ensure the continued implementation of Obama's priorities...and those of every other Democratic and Republican corporatist in Washington.

They are exceedingly effective at getting their agenda through.


Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

The Enemy Expatriation Act - another attack on legitimate protest and dissent like NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072450

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014342985

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348022

Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

The Pentagon's New 30,000-lb MOP Bomb Is Ready To Go
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200058

Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil/Drilling
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1896005

Obama's (Corporate) Education Reform Push is Bad Education Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221922

Obama's 'Race To The Top' Drives Nationwide Wave of School Closings, Teacher Firings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2183810

Trans Pacific Partnership is NAFTA On Steroids
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1914478

NYT slams the government for choosing not to prosecute HSBC top-bankers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965407

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid

Surely every American must realize any cuts hereinafter made to social security, Medicare, or Medicaid...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022191730

Health insurers raising rates by double digits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014358823

So now we are mysteriously falling short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

Why Harry and the Democrats gave away filibuster reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022251878

Nine Democrats signed letter urging quick approval of Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022250081
.....


The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread